| Components | Hours/week (approx) |
|---|---|
| Active online learning (UQ Extend) | 4–6 |
| In-person workshops | 2 |
| Assessment | 2–4 |
Active online learning
Workshops
information, assessment submission regarding the course (workshops assessment)
information on assessment and rules.
Active online learning activities
use Ed Discussion Board for all questions and discussion related to the course
central reading list for course resources and RiPPLE activity
a free online (and powerful) statistical software environment. You will use R in the statistics component of the course. Consider getting familiar with the program prior to LW5.
Getting familiar with R early will help. See Library Resources and workshops
Participate in in-person workshops and in the discussion board
Come to the workshops with any questions you have from the week’s learning activities
Clarity about learning objectives and assessment. If something is not clear post your question to the course discussion board
Workshops will have a worksheet. Worksheets will be on Blackboard prior to the workshop.
The course is set up to provide feedback and help you to progressively develop skills
You will receive a published randomized trial by Week 4 and your assignment is due in Week 7.
The assignment is worth 30% of the grade
The rubric used to assess the assignment is available on Blackboard
Word limit 1500 words
Five engagement tasks will be set over the 5 learning weeks.
These ongoing engagement activities occur in relation to the statistics component of the course (Learning Weeks 5–9).
These assessment tasks may include (but are not limited to) online quizzes and completion of problem sets related to the learning objectives in the relevant weeks.
Further detail is provided on Blackboard
Identify a research question that can be answered within the “Islands” simulation.
Develop methods to collect and analyse the data and then present the results with conclusions.
This is a group inquiry-based research task (groups of up to 3 students).
Communicate your study design, results and conclusions in a short structured research paper.
The assignment is worth 30% of the grade
When: the written exam is held in the exam period at the end of the semester
Duration: 2 hours (10 minutes reading time)
Range of different question types: MCQ, multiple answer, short answer, problem solving
Content: is taken material throughout all of the course
A sample exam is available
The exam is an on-campus invigilated exam using Inspera
| Assessment | Due | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence synthesis | 11 April | 30% |
| Engagement tasks (LW5–9) | LW5–9 | 10% |
| Research report | 26 May | 30% |
| Written exam | Exam period | 30% |
To pass PHRM3301 you need to achieve a total mark \(\ge\) 50%
See guidance on Blackboard and AI student hub.
Get into a groups of 3–4.
Determine the PICO for Wagenlehner et al. (2024) based on the information provided in the abstract.1 A copy of the paper is available via Blackboard.
Make a note of any terms within the abstract that you don’t understand (especially those that are important in determining the PICO).
| Participants | Hospitalised adults with complicated UTI |
| Intervention | Cefepime-tanibactorbactam IV q8h for 7 or 14 days (if bacteraemia) |
| Comparator | Meropenem IV q8h for 7 or 14 days (if bacteraemia) |
| Outcome | Composite of microbiologic and clinical success at 19 to 23 days in the microbiologic ITT population |
Provide a statement of the results of the primary endpoint.
Provide an interpretation of these results in your own words.
Composite success occurred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime–taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (58.0%) in the meropenem group. Cefepime–taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regarding the primary outcome (treatment difference, 12.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.2; P = 0.009).
All studies are arguments. Mapping these arguments can help you to understand and evaluate the study.
An argument map contains
An example argument map
The following paragraph is from the introduction to Wagenlehner et al. (2024). Map out the argument for assessing cefepime-taniborbactam in a randomized trial:
Cefepime, a broad-spectrum, fourth-generation cephalosporin, is used to treat such infections [i.e. complicated UTIs].[7] Resistance to cefepime has increased with the spread of extended-spectrum \(\beta\)-lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenemase enzymes.[7,8] Taniborbactam (formerly VNRX-5133) is a bicyclic boronate \(\beta\)-lactamase inhibitor with potent, selective, direct inhibitory activity against Ambler class A, B, C, and D enzymes, including prevalent serineand metallo-\(\beta\)-lactamases.[9,10] The cefepime-taniborbactam combination is active in vitro against most isolates of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa organisms that are resistant to both ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam.[11-14] Cefepime–taniborbactam has shown in vivo efficacy against cefepime- and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species and against P. aeruginosa.[15-17] Cefepime–taniborbactam has shown an acceptable side-effect profile in healthy volunteers; both cefepime and taniborbactam have well-matched plasma pharmacokinetics with greater than 80% renal elimination.[18-20]
Use https://reasons.io/ or draw it on a page (a worked example for argument mapping is provided here).
Limiting ourselves to the abstract is often fine for a first-pass at determining the PICO. Keep in mind that it has limitations, and that once we have the first draft of the PICO we would need to read targetted sections of the paper to flesh out/confirm the key details.↩︎